Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday June 17, 2012 @07:25AM
from the perfecting-recipe-for-boiled-frog dept.

New Jazari writes "Careful what you say when traveling, since the authorities will soon be able to zoom in on your conversations and record them for an indefinite amount of time. The story is about Canada, but I see no reason to think that this capability will not soon be installed in most places (if it's not already)."

You don't need to do that. Airports have thousands of wetware annoy-o-trons running around all of the time.

I really don't think this is much of an issue. 24 hours of listening in on the generally inane conversation of the traveling public should drive anyone working on the project completely insane. A human being can stand only so much Kim Kardishan and Jersey Shore before it becomes unhinged.

There's the thing - anyone listening to it won't be a human, but a program, at least in the long run. And when you drive that completely insane, well, that way lies Skynet. Ever wondered why our robotic overlords would want to exterminate us? Here's the reason...

This won't work. It is possible to discriminate language and even multiple conversations using more than one recording microphones located some distance apart. That works wonderfully after signal processing.

"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."

I don't know if you have a Court of Human Rights in Northern America, but that's the final instance that should grant you your human right for privacy.

Aren't we talking about public airports here? My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places, and personally I don't understand why there should be. If you say something in front of other people you should expect it to be heard by other people.

The Canada Border Services Agency is a government agency. If it implements a law or rule that takes away your human rights, the law does not stand up to protecting you against interference or attacks on your privacy.

So you sue them until you reach the highest court where you win. IANAL:)

I wake up every day at 6 am and I go to the park. There's absolutely nobody there at that time, except for me and my wife. If I talk to my wife while I'm there, do you seriously expect me to assume that "somebody could have listened to us"?

This is like walking around with a stranger listening closely to everything you say, even if you say it in a very low voice.

I wake up every day at 6 am and I go to the park. There's absolutely nobody there at that time, except for me and my wife. If I talk to my wife while I'm there, do you seriously expect me to assume that "somebody could have listened to us"?

As "good" people, we tend to see the world as "us," the good people vs "them," the bad peopleCops see the world exactly the same way, except YOU are not included in the group called "us"

Stop thinking of yourself as a good law abiding citizen and pretend you're a member of organized crime.That should help recalibrate your expectation of privacy.

As "good" people, we tend to see the world as "us," the good people vs "them," the bad peopleCops see the world exactly the same way, except YOU are not included in the group called "us"

Stop thinking of yourself as a good law abiding citizen and pretend you're a member of organized crime.That should help recalibrate your expectation of privacy.

That would be true if we did not have a presumption of innocence.I think cops see boring, normal people and apparently "interesting" people.Also, members of organized crime have rights. Of course they lose some if they come under suspicion of a crime (such as being a member of a criminal organisation).

I believe that it's less about expecting you to assume that you *WON'T* have any privacy in public than it is about expecting you to *NOT* make the assumption that you would have any privacy in public in the first place.

Nor should you assume that those two notions are equivalent. There is actually a huge difference, and understanding that difference can give you the tools to be confident about the privacy that you do have.

It might illustrate things better for some readers, if we take out the high tech, and replace it with a plain cloths nobody, like the did in the old days. Maybe you want to share some of your picnic with him? Oh you will.. He won't come inside when you get home, but he might be looking in the windows.

I wake up every day at 6 am and I go to the park. There's absolutely nobody there at that time, except for me and my wife. If I talk to my wife while I'm there, do you seriously expect me to assume that "somebody could have listened to us"?

Someone who wanted to listen to you could. Welcome to the 21st century.

I don't expect you to assume that. Many people prefer to live in denial. You seem to be one of them.

My understanding is there is no expectation of privacy in public places, and personally I don't understand why there should be.

It depends what you mean by privacy.

Is there an expectation that if you're talking with a raised voice in a crowded mall, the guy standing two metres away from you might see you or hear your conversation, though you might catch him staring? Sure.

Is there an expectation that any time you leave the privacy of your own home, you can be subject to systemic remote surveillance by unseen agents of a commercial or government body with vastly superior resources, the resulting data to be recorded in perpetuity in a

I wish people would stop equating random people accidentally overhearing your conversation with cameras picking up everything they see and hear. I'd say they're not the same at all. No one needs all this information, and I don't believe they should have it.

The "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" is not a treaty. The U.S. has ratified only one of the two treaties that together implement the UDHR. The one they ratified was ratified with legally binding reservations that state that the U.S. accepts no legal obligations from the treaty. Which means that in effect, not all western countries have ratified the UDHR.
However, since this story takes place in Canada, which has ratified the two treaties which between them implement the UDHR, it is relevant to this a

There's also the issue of sovereignty and enforcement. A state can't remain a state and abdicate sovereignty at the same time, and a key element of sovereignty is the sole legitimate right to the use of force. In order for an entire state to be subject to a law made by another entity, it would by default had to have relinquished its own sovereignty to the entity in question. That's why the UN doesn't actually make "laws"; a law implies enforcement, and the UN lacks the authority to enforce anything.

That's different than states using violence or other forms of compulsion to force other states to comply with agreements or treaties. A sovereign has a positive right to use force to compel a subject entity to follow laws it has established, and the subject has an obligation to adhere to laws passed by the sovereign. Other obligations may at times outweigh the citizenship duty, but it's way up there. On the other hand, the highest responsibility a state has is to 1. maintain sovereignty, and 2. protect its citizens. International agreements always fall below that in terms of ethical force.

So, yeah, in addition to the UDHR (which is a little bit of a misnomer, because not everyone on Earth, let alone the Universe, signed) not being ratified by Congress, the strength of the binds that hold any country to a treaty or agreement are tenuous at best.

No they're not. At least not according to the US constitution. Rather, they're on the level below, equal to federal law (where the most recent will take priority, if there's a conflict). They are, however, superior to state constitutions and state laws, which may be what you're thinking of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ren%C3%A9_Cassin [wikipedia.org]
It is a nice spit in the face of other Canadians like Rene Cassin. Who were principle authors of the UDHR. On CBC Canada they show little commercials about how great we Canadians are for being a part of that. Did you American's know Canada now has what amounts to a dictator, worse and more powerful that Bush ever was?

If organisations providing essential services to the general public can impose arbitrary conditions before you can use their services, you don't have any useful legal protection from abuse at all. That is why most first world countries have some form of statutory regulation in many key industries, such as power supply, transportation networks, communications infrastructure, etc.

As things stand now, probably not. But no doubt the government will modify the laws to carve out an exception. The real question is, would such laws make it past judicial scrutiny? I don't know the answer to that one, but the courts have become more friendly to privacy protection lately, so I'm hopeful.

From the Criminal Code of Canada:Interception of Communications

Marginal note:Interception

184. (1) Every one who, by means of any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a p

yes. You have the freedom to have all public speech monitored (in Canada).

In return for this freedom you have the right to say anything you want - but others have the right to not be forced to listen. You get call blocking as a basic service, and the freedom from harassment in many public venues.

yes. You have the freedom to have all public speech monitored (in Canada).

In return for this freedom you have the right to say anything you want - but others have the right to not be forced to listen. You get call blocking as a basic service, and the freedom from harassment in many public venues.

Which means you're free to say anything you want that the government censors don't find offensive. See Canadian Human Rights Council for details.

Terrorists are going to do shit that authorities are not going to be able to combat with tools like these. The terrorists know there are checkpoints and their limitations. They know their conversation may be overheard so they don't talk. They know that they could walk into a mall or megachurch and do the same damage they did with an airplane.

We're wasting our fucking time and money chasing ghosts which will bite us in the ass regardless of the freedoms we continue to happily and passively give up.

the union representing about 45 CBSA employees at the airport is concerned personal workplace conversations and remarks could be captured and become part of employees' official record...A 2008 RCMP report said at least 58 crime groups were believed active at major airports, typically by corrupting airport employees or placing criminal associates in airport jobs to move narcotics and other contraband to and from planes.

You mean, the major plots that consisted of government agencies trying to convince people to become terrorists and providing them with training and access to explosives, etc? Or do you consider the underwear bomber to be a "major" plot?

This is ridiculous, I use to do risk assessments and anti-terrorism work in the aviation sector protecting airport assets and I see no practical reason for listening in on conversations. If a threat is already within the area-of-interest then you've this doesn't help with detection because the main threats we are meant to look for these days aren't the sort of people who are going to go blabbing on their cellphone about what they're about to do within the AOI. This technology does nothing about reducing attack surface area or reducing the impact of a successful attack. However, if we shift focus away from anti-terrorism this technology becomes slightly more useful in monitoring crime within airports, which believe it or not, happens more often then you think. Either way, it's still unethical and I know that this would be illegal in the jurisdiction I worked in at least.

Original poster here, there's more truth to that then you think but more along the lines of "It's always fact when the government says it is". That's the reason I stopping working in that sector. I'd be calculating risk for various threats and all of a sudden I get a document from the relevant LE entity stating that the expected annual occurrence of a terrorist attack is once a year.... with background explanation being some political diatribe about Muslim extremists in an age of globalisation blah blah bla

Oh, look, a angry little child with no knowledge of history! Do your parents know you're using the internet?

It's very easy to fall into the trap of "this thing that is happening right now" is the "worst/best thing in all of history!". I'm no fan of the TSA, but when you spout crap like that, all you do is drive people away from your line of thinking.

You have no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place anyway. I can't speak for Canada, but in the US case law is already being made that establishes that recording in public places is not an invasion of privacy. This includes photography, videography and audio.

Those rulings are foolish and need changing. If I can see a camera pointed at me or a microphone in my general vicinity and it's a public place, fine. Hidden and secretive monitoring should not be permitted by the government, and police should be absolutely prohibited from interfering with citizens recording them. The penalties should be just as disproportionate to the offense as our stupid drug, sex, and "intellectual property" laws, complete with mandatory minimum sentencing, registering on a list when

IANAL, but you do have a reasonable expectation of privacy in public. You give up certain expectations, but audio recordings in the U.S. are very different than video recordings. Oral communications falls into a different category (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511). My understanding is that reasonable expectation of privacy regarding oral communications is basically that if it is unaided (no technology or device to enhance) then it is fair game, but when you need to use something to increase y

In Canada there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public. It is a 'public space' and in turn, public areas don't have the same level of privacy as private areas. There is however reasonable expectation of privacy in private, and on your private property. Meaning that if you're walking naked in your house, and you leave the drapes/blinds open. It's the other persons fault for staring through the window.

What difference should technology make? Should a formerly deaf person who has been fitted with a high-tech hearing aid that actually gives him more sophisticated hearing than most be prohibited from eavesdropping on a conversation? If not, why should somebody else be prohibited from using technology?

I'd say the difference between what is described in this comment [slashdot.org] and what is described in your scenario (a hearing aid) is obvious. I don't believe the government should be spying on its own citizens (even in public), and I don't believe they should be wasting their resources on nonsense.

I found out some time ago that all conversations at my local bank (and therefore all banks, eh?) are recorded when you are banking at/with a human teller. The public is not made aware of this, but I can confirm it. My understanding is due to bank robberies, this system along with video recording was put into place, but how much more can it be used or is it used for?

This makes me wonder then if the same thing is not happening at all other "public" spot where you interact w

Thank you, I will try to incorporate as many of these words into my innocent conversations as possible and will try to convince everyone else to do the same. Looking for a needle in a sea of needles won't be easy for them.

Recording telephone conversations, e-mail, tweets, etc. between suspected terrorists might be useful if one has the time to analyze them and act on the analysis. But until accurate real time multi-language speech processing becomes available, recording stuff in an airport is a bit too late.

Sure, it would be interesting to play the tapes back (I know. Get off my lawn, kid!) after the airplane slams into a high rise. But what good is that going to do?

Many people are thinking that if I am not near a microphone, it is hard to record my conversation and pick it out of a room full of people. This is normally the case. There is a recent technology advancement being used in sports using a phased microphone array.

If you record each microphone as a seperate track, and maintain timing syncronasation of the tracks, you can steer the array after the event to pick out individual conversations in a crowd.

Live or recorded, the beam forming can be steered either way.

The article was too thin on details to confirm if this is the tech being used, but I I was going to impliment recording for a room full of people that needed later seperation to review the drug lord converstaion, this is the tech that could do the job.

A for privacy, there is littel chance anyone would steer the array from the stored recording to have any interest in what you were saying to the lady next to you that isn't your spouse.

This is what happens when we look to our governments to make us feel safe and secure because we fear the boogeyman or we have an irrational fear of crime and the dark. If we thought for ourselves and didn't have knee jerk reactions to the news, we might actually protect what little freedoms from government incursion that we still cherish.

Nice out-of-context headline. Yes, this is happening at certain Canadian airports (YVR, YOW, YUL, YYZ) but only in Canadian Customs areas (e.g. international arrivals). This posting makes it sound like it's everywhere.

Unless we (as a society) take some very concrete legal steps to make it illegal for our governments to use the results of certain types of surveillance, our children will read 1984 and ask "so, what's the big deal?"

This is not some paranoid worry. If the marginal cost of recording everything you say (online or offline) is near zero (and technology is driving it there), why shouldn't they keep it on file, just in case? (Think of how easy it would be to prosecute certain crimes if you could go back and re-p

"Mom, our school play totally bombed in the trials. The competition just obliterated us as the audience burst into applause. We just felt plain down.........Hey, who are you guys? Leave me alone! Mooooom!?"

We should not be afraid to speak in public. Speech is not something people should have to hide.

Yeah yeah yeah, fire in a crowded theater (the excuse given to uphold the conviction of someone who dared to pass around anti-draft pamphlets), but the reality of these technologies is that they will make people think twice about what they say before they say it. You know, like how someone who remarks to a friend that the security seems lax, that the giant line seems like a target for terrorists, that securit

First of all... practically everybody who lives in our society has something to hide from other people. Anyone who says they don't is either a liar or else a public nudist.

And it's quite reasonable, IMO, to have some expectation of rights of privacy on the things that you have reason to hide.

But... I think that privacy is only a right to the extent that you can take measures to legally keep it, and to the extent that you do not have to expect somebody to break the law in order to have potentially vio

Yes, and if you leave food out, that's how you get ants, and this is why we can't have nice things. Rational people discuss private things in public all the time. Rational people don't plot terrorist acts in public (or anywhere else). And since you have a greater chance of winning the lottery than being injured or killed in a terrorist act, IMHO the incremental removal of personal liberties for acts which are statistically less than likely than you being killed in a plane crash (oh irony of ironies) is not

There's a huge difference between maybe having a conversation reported and systematic recording of many conversations. Just like there's a difference between a cop happening to see your face in the street and full blown constant CCTV surveillance.

The fact that one motorcyclist getting caught is deemed an event just demonstrates how different it actually is. If detectors of cellphone users were widespread there, that would happen so often that it wouldn't make sense to talk about particular events but only about statistics.

Which is why in the article, they clearly say that the audio isn't turned on. The OP obviously didn't read the article. They want to turn it on but are working with their privacy experts to figure out how to do it, since it isn't actually legal.